Sony's come a long way

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
hjs_koeln Regular Member • Posts: 135
Re: Sony's come a long way

Corelli wrote:

My dad who flew in B-17s during WWII also flew on this plane on his 85th birthday. He would have been very sad to hear it crashed.

And yes, It is indeed amazing. I've been into digital since the first Kyocera in the 90s, then the Minolta 1500EX with a detachable tethered lens. Progress was fast and furious in those days.

Cheers

Here´s something I´ve been wondering about: In 95% of cases, whenever I see pictures taken with film cameras (whether it be mine or from other people), image quality is poor. Mostly, the images appear soft, according to nowadays standards.

Looking at this image from a very early digital camera, I can´t help but thinking that this is what many images from your run-of-the-mill film camera look like, once scanned in (well, maybe somewhat better...).

In comparison, my old and trusted RX100 (1st gen) generates tack sharp images.

Granted, I was using cheap equipment back then. I´d have never dreamed about spending 500€ on the body and 500€ on a lens. I was more in the range of 300€ on camera and lens combined.....

Nowadays, 1000€ for body and lens will get you into mid-range APS-C territory, and not further.

It seems the only way to get better image quality and resolution with film is by using large format cameras, with prohibitively high costs for development and scanning per shot. But what causes this drop in image quality with film? Were the lenses not as good? The manufacturing process not as precise? Does development and scanning take away that much?

In digital, there is an absolute limit to optical information. That limit is defined by the resolution of the sensor. Within that limit though, digital cameras appear to pack a hell of a lot more image information in than film does.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow